Hello There, Guest! (LoginRegister)

Post Reply 
A little FACT & FICTION
Author Message
MU ATO Offline
THE ONE AND ONLY
*

Posts: 10,685
Joined: Dec 2003
Reputation: 281
I Root For: MU, GCU, U of I
Location: Illinois now WV

Donators
Post: #1
 
Here's a point-by-point analysis of the errors, evasions and omissions in Condoleezza Rice's testimony in front of the 9/11 commission.

Opening Statement

CLAIM: "We decided immediately to continue pursuing the Clinton Administration's covert action authorities and other efforts to fight the network."

FACT: Newsweek reported that "In the months before 9/11, the U.S. Justice Department curtailed a highly classified program called 'Catcher's Mitt' to monitor al-Qaeda suspects in the United States." Additionally, AP reported "though Predator drones spotted Osama bin Laden as many as three times in late 2000, the Bush administration did not fly the unmanned planes over Afghanistan during its first eight months," thus terminating the reconnaissance missions started during the Clinton Administration. [Sources: Newsweek, 3/21/04; AP, 6/25/03]

CLAIM: "The strategy set as its goal the elimination of the al-Qaeda network. It ordered the leadership of relevant U.S. departments and agencies to make the elimination of al-Qaeda a high priority and to use all aspects of our national power -- intelligence, financial, diplomatic, and military -- to meet this goal."

FACT: 9/11 Commissioner Jamie Gorelick: "Is it true, as Dr. Rice said, 'Our plan called for military options to attack Al Qaeda and Taliban leadership'?" Armitage: "No, I think that was amended after the horror of 9/11." [Source: 9/11 Commission testimony, 3/24/04]

CLAIM: "We bolstered the Treasury Department's activities to track and seize terrorist assets."

FACT: The new Bush Treasury Department "disapproved of the Clinton Administration's approach to money laundering issues, which had been an important part of the drive to cut off the money flow to bin Laden." Specifically, the Bush Administration opposed Clinton Administration-backed efforts by the G-7 and the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development that targeted countries with "loose banking regulations" being abused by terrorist financiers. Meanwhile, the Bush Administration provided "no funding for the new National Terrorist Asset Tracking Center." [Source: "The Age of Sacred Terror," 2003]

CLAIM: "We moved quickly to arm Predator unmanned surveillance vehicles for action against al-Qaeda."

FACT: According to AP, "the military successfully tested an armed Predator throughout the first half of 2001" but the White House "failed to resolve a debate over whether the CIA or Pentagon should operate the armed Predators" and the armed Predator never got off the ground before 9/11. [Source: AP, 6/25/03]

CLAIM: "We increased funding for counterterrorism activities across several agencies."

FACT: Upon taking office, the 2002 Bush budget proposed to slash more than half a billion dollars out of funding for counterterrorism at the Justice Department. In preparing the 2003 budget, the New York Times reported that the Bush White House "did not endorse F.B.I. requests for $58 million for 149 new counterterrorism field agents, 200 intelligence analysts and 54 additional translators" and "proposed a $65 million cut for the program that gives state and local counterterrorism grants." Newsweek noted the Administration "vetoed a request to divert $800 million from missile defense into counterterrorism." [Sources: 2001 vs. 2002 Budget Analysis; NY Times, 2/28/02; Newsweek, 5/27/02]

CLAIM: "While we were developing this new strategy to deal with al-Qaeda, we also made decisions on a number of specific anti-al-Qaeda initiatives that had been proposed by Dick Clarke."

FACT: Rice's statement finally confirms what she previously – and inaccurately – denied. She falsely claimed on 3/22/04 that "No al-Qaeda plan was turned over to the new administration." [Washington Post, 3/22/04]

CLAIM: "When threat reporting increased during the Spring and Summer of 2001, we moved the U.S. Government at all levels to a high state of alert and activity."

FACT: Documents indicate that before Sept. 11, 2001, the Bush Administration "did not give terrorism top billing in their strategic plans for the Justice Department, which includes the FBI." Gen. Henry H. Shelton, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff until Oct. 1, 2001, said during the summer, terrorism had moved "farther to the back burner" and recounted how the Bush Administration's top two Pentagon appointees, Donald Rumsfeld and Paul Wolfowitz, "shut down" a plan to weaken the Taliban. Similarly, Gen. Don Kerrick, who served in the Bush White House, sent a memo to the new Administration saying "We are going to be struck again" by al Qaeda, but he never heard back. He said terrorism was not "above the waterline. They were gambling nothing would happen." [Sources: Washington Post, 3/22/04; LA Times, 3/30/04]

CLAIM: "The threat reporting that we received in the spring and summer of 2001 was not specific as to...manner of attack."

FACT: ABC News reported, Bush Administration "officials acknowledged that U.S. intelligence officials informed President Bush weeks before the Sept. 11 attacks that bin Laden's terrorist network might try to hijack American planes." Dateline NBC reported that on August 6, 2001, the President personally "received a one-and-a-half page briefing advising him that Osama bin Laden was capable of a major strike against the US, and that the plot could include the hijacking of an American airplane." Rice herself actually admitted this herself, saying the Aug. 6 briefing the President received said "terrorists might attempt to hijack a U.S. aircraft." [Sources: ABC News, 5/16/02; NBC, 9/10/02]



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Q&A Testimony

Planes as Weapons

CLAIM: "I do not remember any reports to us, a kind of strategic warning, that planes might be used as weapons." [responding to Kean]

FACT: Condoleezza Rice was the top National Security official with President Bush at the July 2001 G-8 summit in Genoa. There, "U.S. officials were warned that Islamic terrorists might attempt to crash an airliner" into the summit, prompting officials to "close the airspace over Genoa and station antiaircraft guns at the city's airport." [Sources: Los Angeles Times, 9/27/01; White House release, 7/22/01]

CLAIM: "I was certainly not aware of [intelligence reports about planes as missiles] at the time that I spoke" in 2002. [responding to Kean]

FACT: While Rice may not have been aware of the 12 separate and explicit warnings about terrorists using planes as weapons when she made her denial in 2002, she did know about them when she wrote her March 22, 2004 Washington Post op-ed. In that piece, she once again repeated the claim there was no indication "that terrorists were preparing to attack the homeland using airplanes as missiles." [Source: Washington Post, 3/22/04]

August 6 PDB

CLAIM: There was "nothing about the threat of attack in the U.S." in the Presidential Daily Briefing the President received on August 6. [responding to Ben Veniste]

FACT: Rice herself confirmed that "the title [of the PDB] was, 'Bin Laden Determined to Attack Inside the United States.'" [Source: Condoleezza Rice, 4/8/04]

Domestic Threat

CLAIM: "One of the problems was there was really nothing that look like was going to happen inside the United States...Almost all of the reports focused on al-Qaeda activities outside the United States, especially in the Middle East and North Africa...We did not have...threat information that was in any way specific enough to suggest something was coming in the United States." [responding to Gorelick]

FACT: Page 204 of the Joint Congressional Inquiry into 9/11 noted that "In May 2001, the intelligence community obtained a report that Bin Laden supporters were planning to infiltrate the United States" to "carry out a terrorist operation using high explosives." The report "was included in an intelligence report for senior government officials in August [2001]." In the same month, the Pentagon "acquired and shared with other elements of the Intelligence Community information suggesting that seven persons associated with Bin Laden had departed various locations for Canada, the United Kingdom, and the United States." [Sources: Joint Congressional Report, 12/02]

CLAIM: "If we had known an attack was coming against the United States...we would have moved heaven and earth to stop it." [responding to Roemer]

FACT: Rice admits that she was told that "an attack was coming." She said, "Let me read you some of the actual chatter that was picked up in that spring and summer: Unbelievable news coming in weeks, said one. Big event -- there will be a very, very, very, very big uproar. There will be attacks in the near future." [Source: Condoleezza Rice, 4/8/04]

Cheney Counterterrorism Task Force

CLAIM: "The Vice President was, a little later in, I think, in May, tasked by the President to put together a group to look at all of the recommendations that had been made about domestic preparedness and all of the questions associated with that." [responding to Fielding]

FACT: The Vice President's task force never once convened a meeting. In the same time, the Vice President convened at least 10 meetings of his energy task force, and six meetings with Enron executives. [Source: Washington Post, 1/20/02; GAO Report, 8/03]

Principals Meetings

CLAIM: "The CSG (Counterterrorism Security Group) was made up of not junior people, but the top level of counterterrorism experts. Now, they were in contact with their principals." [responding to Fielding]

FACT: "Many of the other people at the CSG-level, and the people who were brought to the table from the domestic agencies, were not telling their principals. Secretary Mineta, the secretary of transportation, had no idea of the threat. The administrator of the FAA, responsible for security on our airlines, had no idea." [Source: 9/11 Commissioner Jamie Gorelick, 4/8/04]

Previous Administration

CLAIM: "The decision that we made was to, first of all, have no drop-off in what the Clinton administration was doing, because clearly they had done a lot of work to deal with this very important priority." [responding to Kean]

FACT: Internal government documents show that while the Clinton Administration officially prioritized counterterrorism as a "Tier One" priority, but when the Bush Administration took office, top officials downgraded counterterrorism. As the Washington Post reported, these documents show that before Sept. 11 the Bush Administration "did not give terrorism top billing." Rice admitted that "we decided to take a different track" than the Clinton Administration in protecting America. [Source: Internal government documents, 1998-2001; Washington Post, 3/22/04; Rice testimony, 4/8/04]

FBI

CLAIM: The Bush Administration has been committed to the "transformation of the FBI into an agency dedicated to fighting terror." [responding to Kean]

FACT: Before 9/11, Attorney General John Ashcroft de-emphasized counterterrorism at the FBI, in favor of more traditional law enforcement. And according to the Washington Post, "in the early days after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, the Bush White House cut by nearly two-thirds an emergency request for counterterrorism funds by the FBI, an internal administration budget document shows." And according to a new report by the Congressional Research Service, "numerous confidential law enforcement and intelligence sources who challenge the FBI's claim that it has successfully retooled itself to gather critical intelligence on terrorists as well as fight crime." [Source: Washington Post, 3/22/04; Congressional Quarterly, 4/6/04]

CLAIM: "The FBI issued at least three nationwide warnings to federal, state and law enforcement agencies and specifically stated that, although the vast majority of the information indicated overseas targets, attacks against the homeland could not be ruled out. The FBI tasked all 56 of its U.S. field offices to increase surveillance of known suspects of terrorists and to reach out to known informants who might have information on terrorist activities." [responding to Gorelick]

FACT: The warnings are "feckless. They don't tell anybody anything. They don't bring anyone to battle stations." [Source: 9/11 Commissioner Jamie Gorelick, 4/8/04]

Homeland Security

CLAIM: "I think that having a Homeland Security Department that can bring together the FAA and the INS and Customs and all of the various agencies is a very important step." [responding to Hamilton]

FACT: The White House vehemently opposed the creation of the Department of Homeland security. Its opposition to the concept delayed the creation of the department by months.

CLAIM: "We have created a threat terrorism information center, the TTIC, which does bring together all of the sources of information from all of the intelligence agencies -- the FBI and the Department of Homeland Security and the INS and the CIA and the DIA -- so that there's one place where all of this is coming together." [responding to Fielding]

FACT: "Knowledgeable sources complain that the president's new Terrorist Threat Integration Center, which reports to CIA Director George Tenet rather than to Ridge, has created more of a moat than a bridge. The ability to spot the nation's weakest points was going to make Homeland Security different, recalled one person involved in the decision to set up TTIC. But now, the person said, 'that whole effort has been gutted by the White House creation of TTIC, [which] has served little more than to give the appearance of progress.'" [Source: National Journal, 3/6/04]
IRAQ-9/11

CLAIM: "There was a discussion of Iraq. I think it was raised by Don Rumsfeld. It was pressed a bit by Paul Wolfowitz."

FACT: Rice's statement confirms previous proof that the Administration was focusing on Iraq immediately after 9/11, despite having no proof that Iraq was involved in the attack. Rice's statement also contradicts her previous denials in which she claimed "Iraq was to the side" immediately after 9/11. She made this denial despite the President signing "a 2-and-a-half-page document marked 'TOP SECRET'" six days after 9/11 that "directed the Pentagon to begin planning military options for an invasion of Iraq." [Source: Condoleezza Rice, 3/22/04, 3/22/04; Washington Post, 1/12/03]

CLAIM: "Given that this was a global war on terror, should we look not just at Afghanistan but should we look at doing something against Iraq?"

FACT: The Administration has not produced one shred of evidence that Iraq had an operational relationship with Al Qaeda, or that Iraq had anything to do with the 9/11 attacks on America. In fact, a U.S. Army War College report said that the war in Iraq has been a diversion that has drained key resources from the more imminent War on Terror. Just this week, USA Today reported that "in 2002, troops from the 5th Special Forces Group who specialize in the Middle East were pulled out of the hunt for Osama bin Laden in Afghanistan to prepare for their next assignment: Iraq." Sen. Bob Graham (D-FL) confirmed this, noting in February of 2002, a senior military commander told him "We are moving military and intelligence personnel and resources out of Afghanistan to get ready for a future war in Iraq." [Sources: CNN, 1/13/04; USA Today, 3/28/04; Sen. Bob Graham (D-FL), 3/26/04]

War on Terror

CLAIM: After 9/11, "the President put states on notice if they were sponsoring terrorists."

FACT: The President continues to say Saudi Arabia is "our friend" despite their potential ties to terrorists. As the LA Times reported, "the 27 classified pages of a congressional report about Sept. 11 depict a Saudi government that not only provided significant money and aid to the suicide hijackers but also allowed potentially hundreds of millions of dollars to flow to Al Qaeda and other terrorist groups through suspect charities and other fronts." Just this week, Newsweek reported "within weeks of the September 11 terror attacks, security officers at the Fleet National Bank in Boston had identified 'suspicious' wire transfers from the Saudi Embassy in Washington that eventually led to the discovery of an active Al Qaeda 'sleeper cell' that may have been planning follow-up attacks inside the United States." [Source: LA Times, 8/2/03; CNN, 11/23/02; Newsweek, 4/7/04]
07-18-2004 01:55 AM
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Advertisement


Rebel
Unregistered

 
CrappiesNew Orleans Bowl
Post: #2
 
Just damn. After reading for 30 minutes, I feel I have decreased my IQ by 10 points. Do you have a link to your assertions? As far as "I" can tell, they're baseless and your assertions are elementary to say the least. .....and I HAVE researched it ALL to include Haliburton, to which also garnered a NO-BID conntract during the Clinton Admin. You think Haliburton and think Big business. I think Haliburton and I think jobs. Of course you're a Democrat who is opposed to Capitalism. Hell, Communism is only responsible for 100+ million deaths.....let's give it another chance. :rolleyes:

Why don't you put some more "Sheep-Fed" info up for us. I'm sure Mike Mallloy, Peter Werbe, Michael Moore, and Terry McCauliffe can come up with some more, spoon-fed information that actually has some truth to it. :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:
07-18-2004 06:50 AM
Quote this message in a reply
MU ATO Offline
THE ONE AND ONLY
*

Posts: 10,685
Joined: Dec 2003
Reputation: 281
I Root For: MU, GCU, U of I
Location: Illinois now WV

Donators
Post: #3
 
RebelKev Wrote:Just damn. After reading for 30 minutes, I feel I have decreased my IQ by 10 points. Do you have a link to your assertions? As far as "I" can tell, they're baseless and your assertions are elementary to say the least. .....and I HAVE researched it ALL to include Haliburton, to which also garnered a NO-BID conntract during the Clinton Admin. You think Haliburton and think Big business. I think Haliburton and I think jobs. Of course you're a Democrat who is opposed to Capitalism. Hell, Communism is only responsible for 100+ million deaths.....let's give it another chance.  :rolleyes:

Why don't you put some more "Sheep-Fed" info up for us. I'm sure Mike Mallloy, Peter Werbe, Michael Moore, and Terry McCauliffe can come up with some more, spoon-fed information that actually has some truth to it.  :rolleyes:  :rolleyes:  :rolleyes:  :rolleyes:
What is it too hard to read the sources that follow the FACTS??? :rolleyes:

Can you NOT read??? :rolleyes:

Can you NOT do your own research?? :rolleyes:

What you need me to hold your hand?? :rolleyes:

:rolleyes:


:rolleyes:



:rolleyes:


:rolleyes:


:rolleyes:
07-18-2004 10:56 AM
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Bob Saccomano Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 1,203
Joined: Mar 2004
Reputation: 8
I Root For:
Location:
Post: #4
 
I especially like the part about terrorism being a "tier one" priority in the Clinton Administration...I'm sure that's a huge consolation to the troops that died in the Khobar Towers, USS Cole, etc.

And I'm sure our men and women in Mogadishu back in 1993 can take comfort in knowing that the Clinton Administration made terrorism a "tier one" priority. Remember that after Clinton took office, one of his first "priorities" was to scale back President Bush's Operation Restore Hope, where 30,000 American troops and 10,000 support troops were sent to give aid to Somalia. Clinton immediately turned over operational control to the UN, and scaled back our troop level from 30,000 to 1,300. In the meantime, Mohammed Farah Aidid was stirring up trouble and, as we now know, getting help from Bin Laden. The result was hardly a rousing success:

On August 29 Task Force Ranger flew into Mogadishu. They were led by General William Garrison and consisted of 440 elite troops from Delta Force. Their mission was to capture Aidid. But, at the same time, in September 1993 the Clinton Administration began a secret plan to negotiate with Aidid. U.S. military commanders within Somalia were not apprised of this. U.S. Defense Secretary Les Aspin denied a request for armored reinforcements made by General Montgomery.

On October 3, 1993 Task Force Ranger raided the Olympic Hotel in Mogadishu to search for Aidid. This led to a seventeen-hour battle in which eighteen U.S. soldiers were killed and eighty-four were wounded. Bodies of dead American soldiers were dragged through the streets of Mogadishu, shown on international news reports. Hundreds of Somalis also died, although the official number has never been released. This was the longest, most bloody battle for U.S troops since the Vietnam War. On October 7 President Clinton responded by withdrawing U.S. troops from Somalia. The hunt for Aidid was abandoned, although U.S. representatives were sent to resume negotiations with clan leaders. - novaonline.nvcc.edu/eli/evans/ his135/Events/Somalia93/Somalia93.html (I should not that General Garrison later sent a note to Clinton taking blame for the operation - the equivalent of falling on one's sword for the commander in chief. If that had been an election year, Garrison could've released a book called "A Shell of itself - how the Clinton Administration is turning our military into a laughing stock" and sold millions of copies.)

What a great job Clinton did against terrorism, huh? And this type of military genius continued for a solid 8 years, culminating in the bombing of an aspirin factory in 1998 - which served only to fuel Bin Laden's belief that the US were "cowards" intent only on using their technology and devoid of the resolve to use ground troops and do any real dirty work.

I find it incredibly amusing that you cite sources like Sen. Graham from Florida and Jamie Goerlick - next, you'll be lifting lines from "Fahrenheit 911" to support your vendetta against the Bush Administration.
Hey, I can take articles and columns from ideological sources and use them to support MY point of view! Watch!

It has been suggested by several spinners in Democrat Party ranks that it is "Bill Clinton's military" that is currently winning the war in Iraq.

The facts show that Bill Clinton halted military development, wasted critical weapons and allowed our forces to become dangerously weak.

No major weapon system was ever introduced during the Clinton years. In fact, many weapons systems were delayed or denied adequate funding.

No Patriot Here

For example, the Patriot missile was not improved during the Clinton years. The repeated pleas of U.S. military leaders that we needed some means to protect ourselves from the ballistic missile threat fell on deaf ears inside the Clinton White House.

Proposed upgrades to the Patriot were not tested, delayed or canceled by the Clinton administration in its feverish attempt to salvage the obsolete ABM treaty with the former Soviet Union. American national security came second to the wishes of Moscow.

The facts show that the Clinton administration traded and sold advanced U.S. military missile technology to China while denying funding to U.S. anti-missile systems that can counter the ballistic missile threat.

George Bush canceled the ABM treaty and immediately funded the Patriot PAC III program. However, events in the Middle East outpaced the frantic effort to ready the Patriot for war.

The war in Iraq forced the Bush administration to put Patriot PAC III into service without a formal testing regime. The PAC III has performed its job, protecting Kuwait and our troops from over a dozen Iraqi ballistic missiles. Yet two Coalition aircraft have also been downed by the untested Patriot, an RAF Tornado and a U.S. Navy F-18 Hornet. Clearly, if the Clinton administration had allowed Patriot to be tested, the friendly fire incidents could have been avoided.

Clinton Missed the Target

The Clinton administration frequently misused, micromanaged and wasted advanced military weapon systems. Critics of the Clinton administration often cite the failed Tomahawk cruise missile strikes at a Sudanese aspirin factory and poorly targeted missile strikes at empty caves in Afghanistan.

USAF officials confirmed that the President Clinton had a history of bungling missile strikes, in particular targeting the Air Launched Cruise Missile (ALCM) by micromanagement from the Oval Office.

One specific example cited was the unsuccessful 1996 Desert Strike operation where USAF ALCMs with fragmentary warheads were incorrectly targeted on hardened Iraq bunkers on White House orders.

The White House bypassed the USAF Air Combat Command (ACC) and directly ordered B-52s to fire the ALCMs at a hardened Iraqi air defense command bunker. The frag warheads exploded harmlessly outside the Iraq bunker, causing no damage.

The Iraq bunker was destroyed later by a second, follow-on, strike of Navy Tomahawk missiles with conventional blast explosive warheads.

Bomb-Happy Clinton

President Clinton was frequently criticized in Congress and the Pentagon for being "bomb happy. " Clinton's policy of bombing with high-tech weapons rapidly used up critical U.S. military inventories. The shortages, according to DOD officials, were a direct result of Clinton's Defense budget shortfalls for the hard-pressed U.S. military.

According to Defense planners, the most critical shortfall was in Air Launched Cruise Missiles. In late 1998, Boeing was contracted by the USAF to convert the final remaining 130 nuclear-tipped AGM-86B missiles into conventional "Bunker Buster" ALCMs with 2,000-pound warheads.

The U.S. used about 330 Tomahawk cruise missiles and 90 ALCMs during Desert Fox strikes – now known as the "Monica Storm" campaign. All the USAF-launched ALCMs were Block 1 types equipped with heavy conventional warheads for bunker busting. In addition, 230 laser-guided bombs were used and about 250 dumb "iron" Mk. 82 bombs.

According to recon results of Desert Fox, the cruise missile and laser bomb attacks left most of Iraqi air defenses intact.

Era of Delay and Decay

The Clinton administration proposed that the B-1 bomber be retired early. The very same B-1 that recently dropped four 2,000-pound bombs on a bunker where Saddam may have been having dinner.

The Clinton administration delayed the Global Hawk, the Predator, the GPS-guided bomb systems and the Long Bow Apache, and wanted to trim the number of aircraft carriers down to eight.

Many of the weapons that the U.S. should be fielding now are still in development because of Clinton delays and under-funding.

The Clinton administration delayed the V-22 Osprey, F-22 Raptor, the Joint Strike Fighter and the Comanche attack helicopter. In addition, the U.S. military is still trying to make up critical shortages in the Milstar space communications program.

The Air Force, Navy and Marines are also scrambling to make up critical shortages in air-refueling tankers, frequently cut out of the Clinton budget requests.

During the Clinton years, the U.S. military had to cut valuable training, live-fire exercises and flight hours in order to meet demanding deployment funding spent in Haiti and Kosovo.

In fact, the U.S. Air Force had to turn to the United Arab Emirates in order to upgrade the F-16 Fighting Falcon. The UAE agreed to purchase advanced versions of the F-16 that the USAF could not afford. The UAE export funded further development of the F-16, which eventually made its way into the U.S. Air Force inventory.

Bill Clinton never helped the U.S. military and often hurt American national security. It is an outright lie to claim that Bill Clinton has any responsibility for the current success in the desert of Iraq. -written by Charles R. Smith April 11, 2003

Charles R. Smith

Professional Experience
Professor of Politics and History, Marymount University
Formerly military historian and research analyst for Data Memory Systems, Inc., a historical evaluation and research organization
Grant Proposal Reviewer, U.S. Institute of Peace
Member, American Political Science Association, Claremont Institute, Intercollegiate Studies Institute, the History Society, and the Naval Institute.

Just as credible as anything MU ATO has posted, wouldn't you say?

Keep spinning, baby.
07-18-2004 11:01 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Advertisement


MU ATO Offline
THE ONE AND ONLY
*

Posts: 10,685
Joined: Dec 2003
Reputation: 281
I Root For: MU, GCU, U of I
Location: Illinois now WV

Donators
Post: #5
 
CLINTON CLINTON CLINTON

:cry: :cry: :cry:

CLINTON CLINTON CLINTON

:cry: :cry: :cry:
07-18-2004 11:11 AM
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Bob Saccomano Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 1,203
Joined: Mar 2004
Reputation: 8
I Root For:
Location:
Post: #6
 
The point is, if fingers are to be pointed, there would be plenty to go around. As a Nation, we were asleep at the switch. Al Gore wasn't speaking for just himself when he said "we have no more enemies in the world" - there were lots of people that agreed.

I'm not really interested in dredging up 8 years of Clinton history just for the hell of it, and I'm not interested in the black helicopter theories surrounding Bush now - they do nothing other than muddy the debate and provide political cover for a very weak Democratic Presidential Candidate.

We need strong intelligence, we need cooperation amongst the agencies charged to protect us, and we need leaders that can make decisions without waiting on the rest of the world to give the A-OK sign. If Kerry gets elected, I'll be praying that he can do it...I just don't think he will.

Any reasonable debate about issues or candidates really needs to step above the name calling (stupid, thug, murder, and the rest we've been hearing about the President, or the "Lurch" and elitist branding of John Kerry). Like it or not, ONE of these 2 guys will be President through 2008...but Bush won't be the last Republican to ever be President, and there will be a Democrat in the White House again sooner or later-and there are big picture issues we need to deal with as a Nation that will far outlive the shelf life of any politician.
07-18-2004 04:00 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
MU ATO Offline
THE ONE AND ONLY
*

Posts: 10,685
Joined: Dec 2003
Reputation: 281
I Root For: MU, GCU, U of I
Location: Illinois now WV

Donators
Post: #7
 
Quote:We need strong intelligence, we need cooperation amongst the agencies charged to protect us, and we need leaders that can make decisions without waiting on the rest of the world to give the A-OK sign.

I couldnt agree more.

You know what else is needed??

BOTH parties to start actually working together. It is disgusting how the split down the middle is sooo far embeded that it seems like there is no turning back.

George Bush is NOT a President who worked to bring parties together.

It also falls onto voters. Gone are the days where most voters would actually look at the candidates and make choices. Now the media makes these choices as people bases everything they see by what TV tells them.

Also voters will defend their party no matte what they do is also disgusting. Its a perfect divide that causes bi-partisan voting and it doesnt look to stop anytime soon.

To steal a quaote from ole Dubya "we need accountability" within our own parties.
07-18-2004 05:52 PM
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Advertisement


Bob Saccomano Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 1,203
Joined: Mar 2004
Reputation: 8
I Root For:
Location:
Post: #8
 
Actually, Bush was doing a pretty good job of working both sides of the aisle...pre-9/11. My view is that 9/11 brought out something in W. that inured him to the notion of pre-emption, and erring on the side of action. That's definitely a debatable philosophy, and one that should be looked at honestly - there are positives and negatives.

Being President is certainly not a job for the meek at heart. I don't think Kerry is meek, but his record in public office lends itself to something other than bipartisanship if you scrutinize it even a little bit.
07-18-2004 07:38 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
safetyeagle Offline
POOTNANNY
*

Posts: 1,130
Joined: Nov 2003
Reputation: 5
I Root For: USM
Location: VICKSBURG, MS
Post: #9
 
MU ATO Wrote:CLINTON CLINTON CLINTON

:cry: :cry: :cry:

CLINTON CLINTON CLINTON

:cry: :cry: :cry:
actually sounds like your saying

BUSH BUSH BUSH
:cry: :cry: :cry:

BUSH BUSH BUSH
:cry: :cry: :cry:
07-19-2004 07:33 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
MU ATO Offline
THE ONE AND ONLY
*

Posts: 10,685
Joined: Dec 2003
Reputation: 281
I Root For: MU, GCU, U of I
Location: Illinois now WV

Donators
Post: #10
 
safetyeagle Wrote:
MU ATO Wrote:CLINTON CLINTON CLINTON

:cry:  :cry:  :cry:

CLINTON CLINTON CLINTON

:cry:  :cry:  :cry:
actually sounds like your saying

BUSH BUSH BUSH
:cry: :cry: :cry:

BUSH BUSH BUSH
:cry: :cry: :cry:
Point being is that the right cant seem to get over President Clinton. ALWAYS whining about something related to Clinton.

GET OVER IT.

Me crying about Dubya??? Did you read the first post in this thread. This along with countless other FACTS should have people crying that he is in office.

Im just pointing out FACTS. All you have to do is read whats in front of you.
07-19-2004 06:02 PM
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Advertisement


safetyeagle Offline
POOTNANNY
*

Posts: 1,130
Joined: Nov 2003
Reputation: 5
I Root For: USM
Location: VICKSBURG, MS
Post: #11
 
MU ATO Wrote:
safetyeagle Wrote:
MU ATO Wrote:CLINTON CLINTON CLINTON

:cry:  :cry:  :cry:

CLINTON CLINTON CLINTON

:cry:  :cry:  :cry:
actually sounds like your saying

BUSH BUSH BUSH
:cry: :cry: :cry:

BUSH BUSH BUSH
:cry: :cry: :cry:
Point being is that the right cant seem to get over President Clinton. ALWAYS whining about something related to Clinton.

GET OVER IT.

Me crying about Dubya??? Did you read the first post in this thread. This along with countless other FACTS should have people crying that he is in office.

Im just pointing out FACTS. All you have to do is read whats in front of you.
i dont whine about clinton,yeah i wasnt crazy about him but he wasnt the worst president the us ever had. ah and getting "FACTS" from the la times makes them reliable "FACTS". might as well get "FACTS" from moveon.org or from a Michael Moore movie. give me a break
07-20-2004 09:49 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
MU ATO Offline
THE ONE AND ONLY
*

Posts: 10,685
Joined: Dec 2003
Reputation: 281
I Root For: MU, GCU, U of I
Location: Illinois now WV

Donators
Post: #12
 
safetyeagle Wrote:
MU ATO Wrote:
safetyeagle Wrote:
MU ATO Wrote:CLINTON CLINTON CLINTON

:cry:  :cry:  :cry:

CLINTON CLINTON CLINTON

:cry:  :cry:  :cry:
actually sounds like your saying

BUSH BUSH BUSH
:cry: :cry: :cry:

BUSH BUSH BUSH
:cry: :cry: :cry:
Point being is that the right cant seem to get over President Clinton. ALWAYS whining about something related to Clinton.

GET OVER IT.

Me crying about Dubya??? Did you read the first post in this thread. This along with countless other FACTS should have people crying that he is in office.

Im just pointing out FACTS. All you have to do is read whats in front of you.
i dont whine about clinton,yeah i wasnt crazy about him but he wasnt the worst president the us ever had. ah and getting "FACTS" from the la times makes them reliable "FACTS". might as well get "FACTS" from moveon.org or from a Michael Moore movie. give me a break
Oh please.

Nice try.

So Newsweek, the Washington Post, ABC NEWS, The White House itself in a release, Joint Congressional Reports, CNN, USA Today, & even comments right from the horses mouth are junk???

:rolleyes:
07-20-2004 11:50 AM
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
MU ATO Offline
THE ONE AND ONLY
*

Posts: 10,685
Joined: Dec 2003
Reputation: 281
I Root For: MU, GCU, U of I
Location: Illinois now WV

Donators
Post: #13
 
Obviously. :rolleyes:
08-02-2004 12:08 PM
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply 




User(s) browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)


Copyright © 2002-2024 Collegiate Sports Nation Bulletin Board System (CSNbbs), All Rights Reserved.
CSNbbs is an independent fan site and is in no way affiliated to the NCAA or any of the schools and conferences it represents.
This site monetizes links. FTC Disclosure.
We allow third-party companies to serve ads and/or collect certain anonymous information when you visit our web site. These companies may use non-personally identifiable information (e.g., click stream information, browser type, time and date, subject of advertisements clicked or scrolled over) during your visits to this and other Web sites in order to provide advertisements about goods and services likely to be of greater interest to you. These companies typically use a cookie or third party web beacon to collect this information. To learn more about this behavioral advertising practice or to opt-out of this type of advertising, you can visit http://www.networkadvertising.org.
Powered By MyBB, © 2002-2024 MyBB Group.